Slashdot Mirror


Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

MobyDisk writes: A lawsuit was filed yesterday over a case in which a woman was arrested for recording the police from her car while stopped in traffic. Ars Technica writes, "Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit, which seeks $7 million."

Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.

Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.

So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?

22 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Fire all the officers? by AqD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?

    1. Re:Fire all the officers? by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?

      Well, if a crime had been committed then the officers involved would be guilty of destruction of evidence. I should think that would be enough reason to not only fire them but possibly send them to jail.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Fire all the officers? by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if a crime had been committed....

      Even if no *other* crime had been committed, the officers involved should be charged with:

      1) Vandalism.
      2) Unlawful destruction of private property.
      3) Assault.
      4) Battery.

      All of which may be possible, and for which the normal protections police enjoy while performing their duties may not apply, because the officer was acting outside the scope of his lawful duties.

    3. Re:Fire all the officers? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then of course you have to assume once they get their own version of the story straight you move on to:

      5) giving a false statement
      6) dereliction of duty
      7) possibly perjury if it's a sworn statement

      By the time you get police doing this kind of crap, they're well past the point where they have any business being in law enforcement, because they're just plain criminals.

      Start putting these cops in jail with the rest of the gangsters. That's all they are.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Fire all the officers? by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're fully correct that's what they should be charged with. But everyone knows they won't be.

      And the fundamental failure here is the DAs & city officials that won't pursue this course of action.

      This is why it's so hard to get corrupt/bad cops out of the system. The entire system is built to protect them, at all costs.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Fire all the officers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So when I break a law there should only be an escalation of discipline where the final punishment is loss of job and pension? I will not tell you my job before you give your answer.

    6. Re:Fire all the officers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that's not what we're talking about here, these are EGREGIOUS violations of civil rights without any inkling of a valid reason behind them.

    7. Re:Fire all the officers? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension and/or loss of their job should the issue be repeated. The loss of their pension and benefits will be intensive enough to keep it from happening.

      Bullcrap. With greater power comes greater responsibility. Showing you can't handle the power responsibly is just cause for being fired, same as any other job (if not more so because we're talking about people armed with guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re: Fire all the officers? by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that such fines are typically paid by the taxpayers - we need to make the individuals responsible *personally* liable for their actions when clearly outside the bounds of the law. Especially when they've been told, repeatedly, what those boundaries are.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Fire all the officers? by Spamalope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension

      This animal farm 'some animals are more equal' 'police union approved' punishment that we've actually been doing needs to stop. Any normal person caught on camera illegally committing assault, battery, and theft while armed does not get a strongly written letter as a reprimand. Police officers are citizens a need to be treated no better or worse than anyone else.

      If you feel that a video record of your actions will be so damning that you consider an armed attack on anyone you spot with a camera is the best option really gives us an idea how you act the rest of the time, doesn't it?

    10. Re:Fire all the officers? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The punishment should be harsher for the police. They are granted extraordinary powers, and with them comes the extra responsibility not to abuse them. Abuse of power should automatically double the sentence, the same way that in many jurisdictions carrying out a crime while armed makes the penalty more severe.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Fire all the officers? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gangsters? You and OP look to be in the same clan when he claims they're doing this "in a rather violent manner". Hyperbole much?

      Did you watch the video? The cops are physically violent, and excessively so. Even if this woman was breaking the law (she was not) there would be no excuse for the way the cops behaved.

    12. Re:Fire all the officers? by microbox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, the police feel they are under assault. Yet there is almost a live-stream of police abusing the moral privilege they are given, even though the job is far safer than many other jobs. I've seen a good friend enter the police, and adopt the cultural talking points. There are real systemic problems with how police do their jobs, and how interrogations and prosecutions are done -- and at no point do police seem willing to accept any criticism or feedback at all. If there is video evidence, then the problem is that there is video evidence.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    13. Re:Fire all the officers? by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a parable that gets told in IT circles all the time:

      An otherwise good guy makes a bad mistake - one that costs his company a million dollars. When the boss shows up at the employee's desk, the employee sheepishly says, "I understand. I'll save you the trouble and quit before you fire me." The boss is shocked. He says, "Why would I fire you? I just spent a million dollars on your training."

    14. Re:Fire all the officers? by 228e2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is very true that most first time offenders could get off with a warning, but we are talking about on the job offenses.
      You LITERALLY cannot find a workplace in this country that you can assault, batter and steal from someone and not expect to be thrown in jail and lose your job.

      Except for being an officer, apparently.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  2. Lawsuit, paid by... by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $7M paid by...The taxpayer!

    No need to correct the problem when it's everyone else who pays for their mistakes.

  3. Learning through repetition by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.

    Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)

  4. its not as if american cops have anything to fear. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If theyre being recorded beating, torturing, or killing, as was the case in New York, they wont even be indicted. If they are, it just means they're acquitted later. If theyre suspended, they'll return to work after the public scrutiny latches onto something else. If they're fired, there are countless other departments that will hire them instead without so much as second-guessing their termination. Lawsuits dont seem to change the culture or nature of law enforcement in america, most citizens are simply viewed as the enemy, not those theyve been sworn to protect and serve.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  5. How about criminal charges ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What can people do to curb this problem?

    You want to curb the problem? Have some high profile prosecutions.

    Charge them criminally, kick them off the force, strip them of their pensions, make examples of them. It should be a felony for a police officer to do this, because they wield so much more power in this equation.

    If the police aren't going to bother either learning, or following the law ... they have no business being police officers. If they can't get it through their heads they have no right to prevent this, then when they do it, bloody well lay charges.

    The police are becoming thugs. And if they want to be thugs and criminals, start treating them as such.

    And if the "good" cops won't stand up and get rid of the bad cops, they're just as guilty.

    None of this circling the blue wall crap, and being on paid suspension. Fire the bastards.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:I have a solution by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd knock him the fuck out and make him prove in court that I didn't need to.

    Tough talk on the interwebs, but that's all it is.

    When you're being tased, or shot, or beaten senseless only to have a group of cops all lie about what happened ... your bravado will be so much electrons and hype. And they'll circle the wagons to say it was all you, and unless someone else gets a video of it ... you'll be pretty much screwed.

    I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment. I just don't think it's going to work quite so well as you seem to think.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Soon to be a felony in Illinois by Holistic+Missile · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here in the police state of Illinois, our legislature has passed a bill, which was larded onto another, completely unrelated bill, which makes recording cops and government officials a class 3 felony, with up to 2-4 years in prison. The bill was added as an amendment to the unrelated bill, which passed with over 90% support in both chambers, essentially making it veto-proof.

    It uses the word 'eavesdropping' a lot, so it may be argued that it applies only to audio; however, a chance at having a sentence like this would certainly scare off most people who would try to film the cops.

    It will be interesting to see how this develops - a similar bill was struck down by the state supreme court in March, and the US supreme court has ruled that police have no expectation of privacy when they're in public, and on duty.

    --
    When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
  8. How to stop it? Just stop it. by andyring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the officer asks for your phone, it's easy.

    SAY NO.

    There. 'nuff said.

    Officer: "Have you been recording me? Let me see your phone."
    Person: "Officer, you may have my phone when I am presented with a signed warrant from a judge."